A man's dollar is a woman's 77 cents -Obama

[Oberyn]

Yeah, that article is basically stating the obvious.

The "77 cents for the dollar" movement is essentially arguing that an arts history major should be paid as much as a data scientist. Not really all that surprising to hear from people who are also card-carrying Marxists.

Obama is a card-carrying Marxist?

[Kafein]

Obama is a card-carrying Marxist?

I would agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that it isn't obvious even to Obama, and pretty much every feminist ever starts talking about this "77 cents" bullshit.

Obama says whatever his PR group thinks is good to say. Either he very well knows the truth which seems the most likely or he doesn't care to verify. The wage statistics of the White House show the exact same trend, women's median income being 80% of that of men. The White House justified this by saying that women were prominently represented in lower-paid jobs, not paid less for the same job. They forgot the part about how that applies to everything everywhere because that would anger the SJW who are voters the democrats don't want to lose.

I wouldn't say that's even the most ridiculous feminist massaging of "statistics" in modern day US. The 1 in 4 women will be raped in college meme (recycled over and over for decades now) is probably more well known. And the consequences for universities have already been implemented, Title IX funding is only available if this rape epidemic (apparently worse than even the worst war torn shithole on the planet) is aknowledged, accepted and dealt with according to the guidelines set up by the government. Which largely consists of setting up kangaroo courts led by idiot academics with zero experience in law and law enforcement to adjudicate felony level crimes internally, sidestepping the whole of the justice system deliberately.

I agree. While the wage gap myth has created more situations of actual discrimination against men at work and ridiculous measures hurting everyone, the rape thing is about students getting kicked off campus permanently and their life ruined. At least the fact that the high profile cases were won in actual courts afterwards is reassuring. American campuses seem to be the place where this insanity is most developed.

[Oberyn]

This is why I don't agree when you say this sort of tumblr shit is restricted to academia and I'm paranoid for thinking it has any influence or power outside of that. It informs and drives government policy, has for decades, on these subjects and many others. This "insanity" is the mainstream, and not only in the US.

[IR_Kuoin]

[Kafein]

This is why I don't agree when you say this sort of tumblr shit is restricted to academia and I'm paranoid for thinking it has any influence or power outside of that. It informs and drives government policy, has for decades, on these subjects and many others. This "insanity" is the mainstream, and not only in the US.

It's a complicated problem. Many random, ignorant people run with an outdated definition of feminism which is 40ish years old now and not that bad (that is, actually about equality). The head of the movement has been entirely taken over by tumblr crazies, but most people who would say they are feminists are completely disconnected with this. PR then processes the statistics and assumes feminism is something people like so they just go with it too. This is why big American business including the government are trying to one-up each other into SJW PR stunts, on top of their spatial proximity with the epicenter of the insanity in the case of Californian multinationals, and the ensuing contamination. History has left modern feminists with a smokescreen and an easy defense strategy that allows them to avoid arguments. It's only now that some are bold enough to openly go Godwin on men and that we have some pieces of modern feminist legislation (consider how Title IX backfired spectacularly) that the counter-movement goes mainstream. Apathy and cowardice have lead us to this situation, not actual opinions. We need more rigorous, ruthless thinkers like Dawkins, but unfortunately that's just not how humans are made and not how we teach them.

[Xant]

In the latest feminism stunt, the US is pushing for women in infantry and special operations in the military, despite all the test results and veterans who are against it. But I guess more important than people not dying is that everyone has an equal chance.

[Kafein]

In the latest feminism stunt, the US is pushing for women in infantry and special operations in the military, despite all the test results and veterans who are against it. But I guess more important than people not dying is that everyone has an equal chance.

You know what, I'm fine with it. Not all combat personnel is sufficiently fit that no women can hope to reach the same physical performance levels. Maybe it requires more training for women, but that's not a fatal issue. Or is it more of a psychological thing? In any case, outright banning women doesn't seem like a good way to go around things when there could just as well be very strict tests that would weed out the unfit for combat, men and women included.

[Xant]

I'm sure you're fine with it, since you don't personally have to deal with it in any way. Men evolved to be hunters, killers, fighters, and to do these things to other men. The differences are not just physical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Humans, males have a ridiculous advantage in all the necessary physical qualities required by warriors) but psychological. Men and women differ by the presence or absence of entire complex adaptations.  Just as men lack uteri and women lack testicles, so too, there are differences of psychological machinery as well. Considering the evolved roles, who do you think has the psychological machinery suited for combat?

This is disregarding all the other issues, like unit cohesion, jealousy, favoritism, sexual assault, pregnancy, the list goes on and on. A group of young males filled with testosterone behaves very differently when you add just one woman to the equation than they do with just other males. Men are built to be attracted by women, women are built to be attracted by men. This creates a lot of problems in a combat arms military setting.

Most of all, it's fucking unnecessary. As if there aren't enough young men willing to kill and die for their country.

[Kafein]

Well, I thought about all that and while it will always justify having submarine crews entirely composed of men, that doesn't mean we can't have full-women squads. The psychological differences between men and women are evident and well-documented, however as I said, if there are psychological traits desirable or undesirable for combat then you can test for them, and we do. There's a lot of variance in psychology and it very well might be that some women make very good warriors. That said, it is definitely simpler to ban women. It all depends on how many talented would-be combatants the army is missing out on, if there's even a need, beside having people do what they desire to do.

[Xant]

Why should we have full-women squads when they objectively perform worse than all-male squads?

The point is moot because of what you touched on in your last sentence: there is no need for women. To integrate them, you i) risk killing a lot of people in the process with your social experiment ii) damage your nation's warfighting capability iii) have to pay fuckloads of money for all kinds of different things. All for what? Certainly not to create a more lethal military. You spend all this time, all this effort, to get something like 0.2% women, so these select few individuals don't feel "oppressed." The military is the last place where you should play SJW politics, its only purpose is to close with and destroy the enemy.

[Lt_Anders]

Why should we have full-women squads when they objectively perform worse than all-male squads?

The point is moot because of what you touched on in your last sentence: there is no need for women. To integrate them, you i) risk killing a lot of people in the process with your social experiment ii) damage your nation's warfighting capability iii) have to pay fuckloads of money for all kinds of different things. All for what? Certainly not to create a more lethal military. You spend all this time, all this effort, to get something like 0.2% women. Yay!

Hey, If women are forced to sign for the draft, then sure they can fight.

All this rhetoric about women serving is only for those who chose to join the military. Lets have equal opportunity for death!!!!

It's probably better if women stay out of war, much like WW2 America. To many men left, not enough to maintain production lines. Women should maintain production and local stability at war while men do the "dirty" work elsewhere.

Course, if a woman wants to fight, as long as she's competent, capable and willing, then let her. If you want to fight, then let them.

[Xant]

Course, if a woman wants to fight, as long as she's competent, capable and willing, then let her. If you want to fight, then let them.

Way to completely sidestep all the problems it would create. It isn't as simple as giving them weapons and saying "the enemy is that a-way, have at it." That might have worked in the 9th century, but that's not how today's militaries operate.

[Kafein]

Way to completely sidestep all the problems it would create. It isn't as simple as giving them weapons and saying "the enemy is that a-way, have at it." That might have worked in the 9th century, but that's not how today's militaries operate.

Worked fine for the Russians.

[Xant]

Worked fine for the Russians.

Did it?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Kafein]

Did it?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

I could bring up a failed campaign of a country that didn't have women in combat corps and argue it's because they didn't have women in combat corps that they lost, but I won't.